DocketNumber: No. 07 24 76
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11006
Judges: STANLEY, J. CT Page 11007
Filed Date: 9/19/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On March 1, 1994, the claimant filed an untimely appeal of the Referee's decision to the Employment Security Board of Review ("Board"). This appeal was dismissed by the Board, pursuant to General Statutes §§
The power of the court in reviewing unemployment compensation decisions is limited under General Statutes §
General Statutes §
Any decision of a referee, in the absence of a timely filed appeal from a party aggrieved thereby or a timely filed motion to reopen, vacate, set aside or modify such decision from a party aggrieved thereby, shall become final on the twenty-second calendar day after the date on which a copy of the decision is mailed to the party, provided (1) any such appeal or motion which is filed after such twenty-one day period may be considered to be timely filed if the filing party shows good cause, as defined in regulations adopted pursuant to section
31-249h , for the late filing.
Thus, a late appeal is allowed only if the plaintiff shows "good cause" for late filing, as defined in regulations issued by the Board. These regulations apply a reasonable person standard. CT Page 11008 "[I]f a reasonably prudent individual under the same or similar circumstances would have been prevented from filing a timely appeal," good cause has been shown. Reg. Conn. Agencies §
In the present case, the Board found that although the Referee's decision was mailed on January 14, 1994, the claimant did not receive the Referee's decision at the time it was issued. Board's Decision, at 2. Rather, the claimant did not receive a copy of the decision until on or about February 9, 1994.
The Board nonetheless concluded, however, that it was without jurisdiction to entertain the claimant's appeal, based on its additional finding that the claimant failed to act with due diligence in bringing his appeal once he did receive a copy of the Referee's decision. Id. In this regard, the Board found that, although the claimant was aware that the appeal period was running, the claimant waited a week after he received the second mailing of the Referee decision before he obtained an appeal form. Id. The claimant then waited an additional twelve to thirteen days before he mailed his appeal. Id. Thus, the claimant did not file his appeal until March 1, 1994, approximately twenty-two days after the cause for late filing (the claimant's failure to receive the Referee's decision) existed. The reason he gave for this delay was that he wished to make copies of his appeal to send to the Governor and the Labor Commissioner and to talk to a lawyer. Id.
Under the circumstances, as set forth above, the Board concluded that a delay of twenty-two days after the second mailing of the Referee decision established the plaintiff's lack of due diligence in filing his appeal. This legal conclusion is a reasonable application of the law, as stated in Reg. Conn. Agencies §
Accordingly, the Court declines to alter the Board's CT Page 11009 conclusion that good cause for late filing of the claimant's appeal from the decision of the Referee has not been shown. The claimant's appeal must be, and is, hereby dismissed.
BY THE COURT,
STANLEY, J.